Messrs P.M. INTERNATIONAL through Special Attorney vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division (F.B.R.) and 3 others
This review application was filed against an order dated 20-1-2010, wherein the Court had directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against an assessment order. The petitioner argued that having exhausted the review remedy under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding a valuation ruling, no further remedy existed. The Court examined the statutory framework, noting that the petitioner's goods were reassessed under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969, following the filing of a goods declaration under Section 79. The Court held that the dismissal of the review application by the Director General of Valuation was ancillary to the reassessment order. Consequently, the Court determined that the reassessment order itself is appealable under Section 193 of the Customs Act, 1969, and that the review order would merge into the final reassessment order. Finding no error or flaw in its previous order, the Court dismissed the review application, affirming that the statutory appeal process remains the appropriate legal avenue for the petitioner to challenge the reassessment of their imported goods.
- Does an order dismissing a review application under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969, merge into the final reassessment order?
- Is an appeal maintainable under Section 193 of the Customs Act, 1969, against an order of reassessment made under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Is a review application maintainable against an order directing a party to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal?
- Section 25A, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 25D, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 79, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 80, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 193, Customs Act, 1969
ORDER
1. Granted.
2. By this application the petitioner counsel has sought review of the order dated 20-1-2010 passed by us in which, it was noted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the assessment order and it may avail such remedy in accordance with law.
Learned counsel has contended that in terms of subsection (2) of section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 the custom value has to be determined and assessed on the basis of valuation ruling given under subsection (1) of section 25A and against valuation ruling the applicant has applied for the review under section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 which was dismissed. He states that the applicant has no remedy against the order of dismissal of review. He, however, admitted that the applicant's imported goods have been assessed in term of section 80 of the Act.
Upon hearing and perusal of the law, it appears that the provisions of section 25A onwards provides for manner of determination of valuation and if a party is aggrieved by a valuation ruling, a review under section 25D is provided to the Director General of Valuation. It is admitted by the learned Counsel that on import of the consignment, goods declaration was filed by the petitioner under section 79 of the Customs Act in which the petitioner itself made the assessment of goods imported by it which assessm ent was not accepted by the Customs officer who on the basis of valuation ruling reassessed the imported consignment. The order of re-assessment is conceded to be that of under section 80 of the Act and in terms of section 193 of the Act, an appeal is provided to the Collector of Customs (Appeal) against such reassessment order. The order of dismissal of review application by the Director General of Valuation seems to be ancillary and incidental to the very reassessm ent and perhaps will merge in the order of re-assessment itself, which will be open to appeal.
' In view of the foregoing legal position, we find no apparent mistake or any flaw floating on the face of the order dated 29-1-2010 as the same speaks of the legal position as is mentioned above.
We, therefore, find no justification to review such order and therefore, dismiss the application.
Cited by 6 cases
- Messrs M.I. Traders, Lahore and another vs The Principal Appraiser (R&D) 2021 PTD (Trib.) 384
- The Collector, Model Customs Collectorate & others vs M/s. Naveena 2017 SHC 299
- The COLLECTOR, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE and 2 others vs Messrs 2017 PTD 2123
- Messrs NUZZER PHARMACUTICAL AND NUTRITIONS vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another 2017 PTD (Trib.) 221
- Messrs H.H. BROTHERS, LAHORE vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2624
- WI-TRIBE PAKISTAN LTD. vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others 2011 PTD 536